On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 22:05:32 Yuxuan Shui via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 21:12:07 UTC, Jerry wrote: > > On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:41:58 UTC, Jesse Phillips > > > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 16:30:15 UTC, bachmeier > >> > >> wrote: > >>> [...] > >> > >> People that want to use D, want to use the latest and > >> greatest. The reference compiler moves the fastest so they > >> want the reference compiler to be switched to a different > >> backend. Why a FOSS back end is required to use D depends on > >> the person, usually it is political. > > > > Any other backend would be better. DMD with -O takes over an > > hour for my project to compile. In comparison LDC with -O3 > > takes less than a minute and produces a faster binary. It > > doesn't really make sense to increase the workload maintaining > > 2-3 different compilers when D is already lacking manpower. > > That sounds like a bug in the DMD backend...
Definitely. It is almost always the case that building a program with dmd is much faster than building with gdc or ldc. The tradeoff is that gdc and ldc do a much better job optimizing the resultant binary. So, with dmd, you get fast compilation but a somewhat slower binary, whereas with gdc and ldc, you get slow compilation but a faster binary. If anyone is seeing dmd compile anything significantly more slowly than gdc or ldc, then dmd has a bug, and it should be reported (though reducing the code to something reportable can be entertaining; fortunately, dustmite can be a big help with that). - Jonathan M Davis
